Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

United States v. Taylor

April 20, 2010


The opinion of the court was delivered by: Nora Barry Fischer United States District Judge

Judge Nora Barry Fischer



Presently before the Court are several motions and other pleadings submitted by pro se

Defendant Kenneth Taylor (Docket Nos. [171], [172], [174], [175], [182], [183]) and the Government's omnibus response to several of these submissions (Docket No. [181]). Upon consideration of the parties' submissions, and for the following reasons, the Court construes the Defendant's pleadings at docket numbers [171], [172], and [174] as motions to vacate, set aside or correct sentence under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and said "motions" are dismissed as untimely pursuant to section 2255(f). In addition, Defendant's motions to strike the Court's Order dated January 13, 2010 and the Government's response to his motions [175], [183] are DENIED, as frivolous.


The criminal prosecution against the Defendant was initiated by the filing of a criminal complaint against him and Richard McIntosh on June 7, 2006. (Docket No. 1). Thereafter, on June 27, 2006, a federal grand jury returned a three-count indictment against him. (Docket No. 22). The indictment charged him with interfering with interstate commerce by means of robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a) (Count 1), using a firearm in furtherance of that offense, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c) (Count 2), and knowing possession of stolen firearms that had been shipped in interstate commerce, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j) (Count 3). (Id). The indictment alleged that the Defendant participated in an armed robbery of Pitt Loan, Incorporated, a federally licensed firearms dealer located at 603 East Ohio Street, Pittsburgh, PA on May 5, 2006 and later, on May 17, 2006, knowingly possessed several firearms that were stolen during the robbery. (Id.).

Jury selection was held on May 23, 2007, and a jury trial was held during the balance of May and into June of 2007. (See Docket entries from 5/23/07 through 6/5/07). At the conclusion of the jury trial, on June 5, 2007, Defendant was found guilty of Count 3, knowing possession of stolen firearms, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 922(j). (Docket No. 132). The jury was unable to reach a verdict as to Counts 1 and 2, and the Court declared a mistrial as to those counts. (Id.).

The Court then set jury selection and trial as to Counts 1 and 2 in late July 2007. (Docket No. 142). However, on July 18, 2007, the Defendant pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement with the Government to Count 1, interference with commerce by means of a robbery, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a).*fn1 (Docket No. 145). The plea agreement contained many stipulations between the parties, including: that the Defendant's overall offense level under the Sentencing Guidelines was 28, his criminal history category was I, the applicable guideline range in Defendant's case was 78-97 months and that 96 months imprisonment was an appropriate sentence as a result of his case. (Docket No. 146). In addition, Defendant acknowledged responsibility for the conduct charged at Count 2, using and carrying a firearm during a crime of violence, on or about May 5, 2006, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(1)(A)(ii) and (2) and the Government also agreed to move to dismiss this charge. (Docket No. 146). The written plea agreement also contained express waivers of the Defendant's right to directly appeal and collaterally attack his conviction and sentence. (Id.).

At sentencing, on October 18, 2007, the Court accepted the parties' plea agreement and imposed a sentence of 96 months imprisonment, and three years of supervised release at each of Counts 1 and 3, said terms of imprisonment and supervised release to run concurrently. (Docket Nos. 162, 163). Restitution of $26,500 was ordered and a $200 special assessment was imposed. (Id.).

After sentencing, Defendant, through counsel, filed a motion for an extension of time within which to file an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which the Court granted, making his notice of appeal due by December 3, 2007. (Docket Nos. 164, 165). However, no appeal was taken. Indeed, no action was taken in Defendant's case until the Court was forwarded a letter from the Defendant dated December 28, 2009 addressed to the Honorable Maurice Cohill and titled "Declaration of and Rescission of Signature(s) and Oral Plea(s) for Cause." (Docket No. 172).*fn2 Subsequently, the Defendant submitted a pleading titled "Petition in the Nature of Requisition for Full Disclosure of: 1) the Jurisdiction and Character of a United States, 2) Petioners [sic] Proper Status, 3) Subject Matter Jurisdiction," which was filed on January 12, 2010. (Docket No. 171).

After receiving these submissions, the Court entered an Order pursuant to United States v. Miller, 197 F.3d 644 (3d Cir. 1999), advising the Defendant that all federal constitutional claims must be included in a single habeas corpus petition and of his right to: (1) withdraw the pending submissions and file one new, all-inclusive § 2255 petition setting forth every ground which may entitle him to relief from the conviction and sentence, provided that such motion is filed within the one year statute of limitations; (2) amend the § 2255 petition presently on file with any additional claims or materials within 120 days; or (3) choose to have the petition ruled on as filed. (Docket No. 173).

Thereafter, the Defendant submitted a pleading titled "In the Nature of Motion to Dismiss for Lack of In Personam and Subject-Matter Jurisdiction" (Docket No. 174) on January 19, 2010 and, later a "Writ in the Nature of Motion to Strike the Alleged Evidence Allegedly Stated by Administrative Law Judge Honorable Nora Barry Fischer" on January 29, 2010 (Docket No. 175). The Court ordered the Government to respond to the Defendant's various pleadings (Docket No. 178), and said response was filed on March 16, 2010 (Docket No. 181). Finally, the Defendant filed two additional pleadings on April 8, 2010, titled "In the Nature of Declaration of Status and Denial of Assumptions by Affidavit" ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.